Mali Kaluram v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 34/2019[2020] HKCFI 1834

Court

High Court CFI

Date03 Aug 2020

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 34/2019

[2020] HKCFI 1834

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 34 of 2019

BETWEEN

	Mali Kaluram	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

	consideration of documents only; or
	consideration of documents and oral submission by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.This is the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 21 December 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board’s Decision”).

2.Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the RHC, Form 86 is amended by deleting the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) as proposed respondent and deleting the Board as interested party.

3.The applicant is an Indian national. He is an illegal immigrant. He applied to the Director for non-refoulement claim. The Director rejected his application.

4.The applicant appealed to the Board against the Director’s Decision.

5.By the Board’s Decision, the Board rejected his appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.

6.The applicant filed Form 86 on 4 January 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

7.However, the Director informed this Court by letter dated 30 March 2020 that the applicant departed Hong Kong on 30 August 2019.

8.It is clear that the applicant has no intention of proceeding with his application. As such, his application should be dismissed.

9.Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

Dated the 3^rd day of August 2020

	(Mike Mak)
	for Registrar, High Court

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Notes for the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).		Sent to the Applicant on 3/8/2020 Mali Kaluram Applicant’s ref. no: Nil.		Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 3/8/2020 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 8858/17/10/188/IN1673 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2127/17(formerly RBCZ/3001260/14) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1